“In the created circumstances, it would also be opportune for the responsible bodies to publish documents from the times of the PCRM government, which would prove, as Voronin asserts, that Russia hatched up plans to destabilize the Republic of Moldova through the agency of international mafia or we should conclude that the leader of the PCRM managed the country while being “in delirium”...”
Reactions to warning of President Maia Sandu
On February 13, 2023, President Maia Sandu issued a public warning about the existence of external threats to national security. The presidential message contained also references to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statements about the Russian Federation’s plans to destabilize the Republic of Moldova, which were later confirmed by the responsible institutions of the Republic of Moldova. After depicting the dangers to which the country is exposed, President Sandu ended her message by noting that: the Kremlin’s attempts to bring violence to our country will not succeed.
In a normal way, Maia Sandu’s warning generated different echoes. The reaction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MFARF) followed immediately: ”Such assertions are fully unfounded and unproven. These are formulated in the spirit of classical techniques that are often used by the U.S., other Western countries and Ukraine… It is evident that the real goal of the Kyiv, which launched disinformation about “the Russian plan to destabilize Moldova”, is to distract the Moldovan citizens’ attention from the internal problems caused first of all by the failed social and economic policy of the current administration and the fight against the dissidents and political opoonents… It should be noted that even in Moldova, many people perceived Maia Sandu’s statement with distrust and bewilderment”.
The MFARF’s message contains a dose of truth, at least as regards one aspect. Indeed, many in the Republic of Moldova perceived Maia Sandu’s warning with distrust and among these were former coalition allies of the President, namely ex-Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova to the U.S., the leader of the Coalition for Unity and Wellbeing (CUB) Igor Munteanu, who stated that the warning is not credible: “Zero credibility, zero verification of the disseminated information”. This way, in a weird way, the voice of the CUB leader joined the choir of voices of the Communist-Socialist opposition that categorically refuses to state its attitude to the Russian aggression against Ukraine and its impact, at least the estimated one, on the socioeconomic situation in the Republic of Moldova, but who yet dared to condemn President Maia Sandu’s warning, deriding it and naming it phantasmagoria of a delirious President”.
How opportune is the President’s warning?
Surely, if President Maia Sandu should have made reference to the information presented by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky is another question. It is noteworthy that on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Zelensky himself had been warned publicly about Russia’s plans, but he refused to warn the citizens, expressing his confidence that a responsible state like Russia could not venture into an unprovoked war. Moreover, analysts of the intelligence services of Ukraine two years before the aggression had warned about the imminence of Russia’s armed attack. The question is, how the imminence of the Russian aggression became predictable? Things probably became clear when President Vladimir Putin started to speak in public about the plans to regain the Russian land that artificially became part of the former Soviet republics as presents of the Russian nation.
The mechanism designed by the Kremlin to get back the Russian land are well-known – provocation of conflicts through the fifth column that was destroyed in Russia, but is militarily and financially supported in former Soviet republics. Respectively, Ukraine, as Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, became a victim of this plan after little green people occupied Crimea, wishing to becoming peacekeepers in Donbas. In this connection, Vladislav Surkov, the architect of the plan “Russian spring” – constitution of Novorossiya (“New Russia”), ex-adviser to President Putin, confirmed that the Minsk agreements were compiled so that they could not be implemented. The confessions come to confirm the assertions of Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, about the Minsk agreements used as a hook in which Ukraine was caught to writhe without being able to escape. However, unexpectedly, Ukraine decided to escape from the hook and this made the aggression against it imminent. Respectively, on the eve of the invasion, the architect of the Russian spring informed the public opinion about the destabilization of the former soviet republics in order to reconquer these.
In the aforementioned context, it is opportune to return again to the MFARF’s statement saying that the warning issued by President Maia Sandu is designed to misinform public opinion so as to distract attention from internal problems. The point is the absolute disinformation champion is the senior administration of Russia that, on the eve of the aggression against Ukraine, vehemently denied having plans to attack the brotherly nation. In such circumstances, it would be opportune for the MFARF to do one thing – to follow the call of one of the chiefs of the Russian propaganda – stop the lies, including in ministries!
Russia’s destabilizing relapsing
Maybe indeed, President Maia Sandu shouldn’t have issued that warning. But there is a problem. It is not for the first time that Russia plans to destabilize the Republic of Moldova. From this perspective, the ignoring of threats would mean irresponsibility. The point is the destabilization of the Republic of Moldova had been planned for several times earlier too. In such circumstances, the country’s previous administration didn’t avoid informing public opinion about the devised plan. Respectively, the first destabilization was planned in February 2005, when the current leaders of the Bloc of Communists and Socialists (BCS) were in power, while the office of President was held by Vladimir Voronin.
It happened during the campaign prior to the parliamentary elections and, respectively, a number of Russian citizens who aimed to destabilize the situation in the country were then detained and expelled. The given attempt was then made public by Vladimir Voronin himself. Later, the SIS director confirmed that: “the foreign citizens conducted professional following... determined the itinerary of the President’s motorcade,... bribed representative of electoral commissions”. Several months later, in July 2005, on the occasion of the municipal elections in Chisinau, four Russian diplomats were detained for interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. In that period, there were also arrested other Russian citizens, arrests being made during three consecutive days.
So, from the aforementioned, we can see that the Communist government defended with determination its monopoly on power in the Republic of Moldova. However, in response to Vladimir Voronin’s resolve to defend the country’s sovereignty and independence, Moscow warned that the Republic of Moldova will be punished through the agency of bans. But Voronin refused to believe this thing: “I will never believe that the Russian government can impose economic sanctions on Moldova”. But it is one thing what Voronin believes and it is another thing what followed. Several months later, Russia imposed drastic bans on Moldova and the gas prices were increased several times, up to the European average. For the citizens of our country, it is important to remember that namely then, in 2005-2006, the gas price formula was negotiated and this was only reiterated in the agreement confirmed in October 2021 by minister Andrei Spînu.
The attempts to destabilize the Republic of Moldova continued for four years and ended in April 2009, during the so-called Twitter revolution. Several months later, in July 2009, President Voronin said that the events of April 7 in Chisinau, during which the Parliament Building and the Presidential Palace were destroyed, were organized by the “international mafia” associated with Russia. It should be noted that the current fan of Putin, Communist MP Constantin Starysh, who in 2005-2009, serving as the chief propagandist of the Communist regime, didn’t have then the courage to name Voronin delirious President, while his statements – phantasmagorias.
It later turned out that among the main instigators of the April 7, 2009 violent events that followed the peaceful protests was Russian citizen Eduard Bagirov, who was the right-hand man of President Vladimir Putin, as it later became known. In fact, the action that led to the detention of the peaceful protest also involved Bagirov’s friend, the famous Natalia Morari, who guided the young people from the Great National Assembly Square to the Parliament Building and the Presidential Palace, where the violent events occurred. Later, Morari admitted that: “Bagirov was the one who wrote on his blog that he was behind that events and was then convicted. I was interrogated in his case. I was part of the trial and said everything I knew. For me, who Eduard Bagirov served - the Communists or Vlad Plahotniuc who only started to gain power then - is a big question”. These are strange conclusions – why only the Communists or Plahotniuc? Why not also the regime of Putin whose right-hand man Bagirov was? In fact, Bagirov’s friend is used to misleading the people, as it happened in the case of the spreading in international press of invectives about the Moldovan customs – The Big House is kept in order for welcoming the conquerors. Who knows, she could have welcomed Bagirov in her big house...
Conclusions and recommendations
From the aforementioned, we can draw the conclusion that the Republic of Moldova was not only once the victim of subversive actions on the part of Russian imperial circles. The Communist-Socialist opposition from the Republic of Moldova pretends to have forgotten about the events in which it took part and currently derides President Maia Sandu’s warnings and their memory should have been therefore refreshed indeed.
In fact, we cannot know for sure that if Maia Sandu’s recent warning concerning the plans to destabilize the Republic of Moldova is a phantasmagoria or not. However, we can consider that if the Maia Sandu’s warning is phantasmagoria, the accusations and the actions of the regime of Voronin of 2005-2009 over the Russian plans are phantasmagorias too.
Anyway, it is important for the citizens to remember that the bans on the Moldovan products on the Russian market and the formula for setting the gas prices are direct effects of the governance of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova and the traitors who left the PCRM in order to find refuge in the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova (PSRM).
Returning to the current events, it should be noted that after the visit paid to Moscow in September 2022 by the MPs of the Shor Party with the aim of solving the problem of supply of the Republic of Moldova with gas, the so-called Committee for National Salvation (CSN) was constituted in Chisinau a month later and this declared the taking over of power as the goal. The responsible bodies should decide how such actions are called.
In the created circumstances, it would be also opportune for the responsible bodies to publish documents from the times of the PCRM government, which would prove, as Voronin asserts, that Russia hatched up plans to destabilize the Republic of Moldova through the agency of international mafia or we should conclude that the leader of the PCRM managed the country while being in delirium.
The Communist propagandist, MP Constantin Starysh, who recently became the fan of Putin, should be encouraged to continue reading the literary works of writer Vladimir Sorokin, hoping that he will soon start to also read the anti-utopian story “Day of the Oprichnik” so that it becomes clear to him whose fan he is.